Class Actions

Concussion Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Certification in Person in Suit Against NCAA

August 7, 2013 | Gregory J. Brod

Few things could be more thrilling in a college student’s life than playing a college-level sport. The respect of peers, the fun of the game, and the never ending team spirit are the makings of classic American college-level sports players. One thing stands in the way of many professional sports hopefuls, however-traumatic sports injuries. When college-level sports result in massive head injuries, the results for the team, the player, and the sport, are not good.

The proliferation of serious head injuries in college sports has recently spurred action in federal court. According to Mercurynews.com, attorneys for several former athletes have brought suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over player safety in the competitive world of college-level sports. The original suit was brought two years ago in a Chicago U.S. District Court, on behalf of a number of former college athletes, including Adrian Arrington, a former football player for Eastern Illinois. Mr. Arrington claimed in his original complaint that lack of safety measures and enforcement on the part of the NCAA caused him to suffer severe and repeated concussions to his head. He is seeking monetary damages to compensate him for the injuries, as well as a court order for the NCAA to adopt policies that would monitor medical conditions of players and guidelines for concussion injuries.

Mr. Arrington and his fellow college-athletes’ suit does not stop there, however. At the end of July this year, Mr. Arrington and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys made a motion to the federal court judge to certify the suit as a class action lawsuit. If class-action status were to be granted by the judge, the plaintiffs could expand the lawsuit to include thousands more injured former college-athletes.

Business Alert: California Approves Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Clauses

December 12, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The Court of Appeals of California recently released a key decision in Phillips v. Sprint that will significantly impact the field of California class actions. A copy of the decision can be found at the California court system’s website (specifically http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A134371.DOC). This decision will be of particular interest to our business clients but may trickle over into insurance disputes and other arenas.

Phillips Ruling Results in Change to California Law

In 2005, after a period of procedural matters, named plaintiff Timothy Phillips filed a putative class action lawsuit (“putative” means that the court has not yet agreed a class exists or that a class claim is viable) against Sprint. The case alleged that Sprint made misrepresentations to its customers about cellular telephone rates. In 2006, Sprint filed a motion asking the court to force the parties to go to arbitration, citing a provision in its customer agreement that requires individual arbitration of all disputes related to the agreement. The arbitration provision, which specifies that it is to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), is broad and applies to all claims while precluding the resolution of claims on a class level.

San Francisco Oil/Gas Attorney on Lessons from a New Zealand Mine Disaster

November 19, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Representing clients injured in San Francisco workplace disasters means following news from across the nation and even around the globe. Although New Zealand is on the other side of the world, the investigation into a mine explosion that occurred there two years ago can hold lessons for the coal mining industry and related fields here in Northern California. These lessons can also translate into legal responsibility, opening companies that ignore safety up to lawsuits from those injured by industrial negligence.

Report Finds Company & Regulatory Fault in New Zealand Mine Explosion that Killed Twenty-Nine

The San Francisco Chronicle is following the release of an investigation into a tragic underground explosion in a New Zealand mine that killed twenty-nine workers in November 2010. After eleven weeks of hearings, the report concluded that the Pike River Coal company exposed miners to an unacceptable level of risk as it focused instead on financial gains. The cited failures include ignoring twenty-one specific warnings in the seven weeks prior to the explosion that methane gas had grown to explosive levels below ground, plus twenty-seven other warnings of danger, with warnings continuing through the morning of the explosion. In some instances, workers rigged their machines to bypass methane sensors to prevent a safety trigger that would automatically shut the equipment down when methane levels grew too high.

Elder Care, Food Safety, and Other Legal Issues Implicated in Sacramento Poisoning

November 14, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

In law school, students take classes focused upon specific areas of the law, examining topics separately in order to grasp each legal concept. However, in the actual practice of civil litigation, legal issues overlap and a single incident can involve many different areas of law. Our Sacramento injury law firm understands this reality and Attorney Greg Brod’s experience representing victims in a range of civil matters ensures he can help in the very real world where clients need legal counsel capable of seeing the wide range of issues implicated in a single case.

Poisonous Mushrooms Leave Two Dead, Four Ill at Loomis Elder Care Facility

The Sacramento Bee is following a tragic incident that left two dead and four ill at a senior living facility in the Sacramento area. The Gold Age Villa is a small assisted living facility located in Loomis and licensed for up to six residents at a time. Among the qualities touted on its website is the attention to special dietary needs and the preparation of homemade meals, an element that can attract people who dislike the institutional feel of the food services at other, typically much larger, senior care facilities. The facility is owned by Raisa Oselsky who has also run the home for more than five years. Last Friday, a caregiver at the home made a tragic error and prepared a homemade soup using wild mushrooms. Unfortunately, the mushrooms were toxic and the meal led to the death of eighty-six year old Barbara Lopes and seventy-three year old Teresa Olesniewicz. Four others, including the caregiver, also fell ill after consuming the soup. Oslesky did not answer calls about the incident. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office ruled the deaths accidental.

Understanding Class Action Litigation — Why Bring a Class Action?

October 22, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

At The Brod Firm, we strive to help every client recover. Our San Francisco plaintiff’s law firm takes cases we believe in and our team works hard to get our clients the full amount of damages available under California law. We also believe in helping clients navigate the legal system in the best possible manner. In some cases, the best method for resolving a dispute is not an individual suit but rather a class action, a lawsuit that allows multiple plaintiffs to bring their case collectively in either state (via a mix of statutory and case law) or federal court (via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure §23).

Efficiency & Cost-Effectiveness

There are a number of reasons why it may be better to bring a claim as a class action that as an individual suit. In cases where many plaintiffs share the same issues of law and fact, a class action can be more efficient than individual suits. The collective suit can avoid having the same issues, fact-based witnesses, and experts repeated countless times. This saves court costs and helps keep the civil system flowing efficiently. For example, suppose an allergy drug causes a dangerous side effect. Using the class action device can mean that issues like causation (proving the drug is responsible for the adverse effect) and the amount of advance knowledge the company had only need to be litigated once rather than proven again and again by each patient who suffered the dangerous side effect.

San Francisco Consumer Law Firm Applauds Ruling on the Use of the Term “Natural” on Food Labels

October 15, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

More and more Americans are looking to avoid too many processed chemicals and purchase more natural food products. While some people inspect every ingredient list, many rely on claims on the face of the product. Food labeling is a complex mix of marketing and truth, making it inevitable that consumers would eventually call a company to task over labeling claims.

Overview & Initial Rulings in Case About Food Labeling

Our San Francisco class action law firm is closely following a developing case about the use of the word “natural” on food labels. A group of plaintiffs filed a class action in a California federal court against Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. As detailed in a newsletter for the supermarket industry, the plaintiffs challenged the company’s labels and advertising that called certain products “all natural.” The class asserted that the claims were false and misleading given that the products contain between one and five synthetic and/or artificial ingredients (these will collectively be referred to as “artificial ingredients” in this article) and because one package fails to disclose that the cocoa in the product was processed using artificial agents.

Class Action Settlement Protects Sacramento Tenants

October 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

At The Brod Law Firm, our Sacramento tenant’s rights lawyer is committed to ensuring that landlords and rental companies maintain their properties in livable conditions. There is often strength in numbers and sometimes a class action is a useful tool for protecting tenants. While every renter is entitled to a habitable unit, operating as a class can give added force to individual claims and ensure the landlord is forced to make real, effective change.

Settlement for Tenants of Uninhabitable Property in Rancho Cordova

A group of tenants in Rancho Cordova banded together to form a class and the Sacramento Bee recently reported on their success. Residents of Cordova Estates, a forty unit apartment property on Croetta Way, faced unacceptable living conditions. Cockroaches and bedbugs infested the complex, roofs leaked, balcony floor failed, heat was inadequate and mold was a recurrent problem. These and other conditions made life miserable and caused numerous health ailments, even leading to a child developing a staph infection.

California Class Action Lawyer on Patient Suit Against Nursing Home Group

September 17, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

A California class action against a nursing home chain, covered by reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle, caught the eye of our firm, especially since it involves the intersection of two of our practice areas — class actions and nursing home abuse litigation. The target of the suit is Covenant Care, an Orange County company that operates forty-five skilled care nursing facilities across seven states. Covenant operates in the West and Mid-West regions and owns sixteen nursing homes in Alameda County. California Watch expressed concern about the company back in 2010, when an investigative report found thirteen homes in the state had reduced staffing levels despite receiving $15 million of added state funding in prior years.

A class of patients brought the action alleging that the sixteen facilities failed to meet staffing standards for at least thirty-five percent of the time during a four-year span that began in December 2006. According to the law, each violation of a patient’s rights can carry up to $500 in damages. However, plaintiffs assert their primary goal is simply to require the company to comply with the staffing rules.

Responding to the resident class action, Covenant Care argued that the law only allowed state regulators to enforce the staffing requirements. A Superior Court sided with the company and dismissed the patients’ suit. In a ruling handed down in August, the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed the lower court and held that patients have the right to sue long-term care facilities if they fail to meet California’s nurse-staffing standards. The justices found the law allows residents to bring actions themselves to address violations of their own rights, reading the legislature intended patients to be able to protect their own interests. Covenant Care did not respond to reporters’ requests for comment on the decision.

San Francisco Product Liability Attorney Comments on Danger of Tread Separation as Michelin Recalls Over 840,000 Tires

July 30, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The Brod Law Firm believes that Californians should be able to trust the safety of products sold to and used by residents of The Golden State. As a San Francisco product liability law firm, we help consumers injured by defective products recover compensation through both individual and class action lawsuits. Since we also represent many people injured in car accidents, we know that it is particularly dangerous when the defective product is a car or automotive part.

On Thursday, Michelin announced a voluntary recall of approximately 841,000 tires sold under the BFGoodrich and Uniroyal brands. According to the AP report carried by The San Francisco Chronicle, the treads can separate resulting in rapid air loss. While no injuries or deaths have been linked to the tires, quality-control workers noticed an uptick in problems associated with the tires this year. According to Michelin, separation has occurred in fewer than 150 tires but the company felt a recall was necessary in order to protect driver safety.

The recall involves replacement tires manufactured from April 2010 until early 2012 and used on heavy duty, full-sized vans and commercial light trucks. The specific tires involved in the recall are BFGoodrich commercial tires LT 235/85 and LT245/75 and Uniroyal Laredo tires LT 235/85 and LT245/75. Michelin has set-up a toll-free number and web sites for consumers and will replace the tires at no charge.

The Role of the Named Plaintiff in a Class Action Lawsuit

May 4, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

When a single event results in harm to a group of individuals, The Brod Law Firm is proud to be able to assist the victims by filing a class action lawsuit in California state or federal courts. Cases amenable to class action treatment can include a wide-range of issues such as business fraud, employment discrimination, securities violations, or industrial accidents, such as an explosion at the Richmond oil refinery. Class actions allow a group of similarly impacted individuals to bring their case collectively, saving resources for the individual plaintiffs and also providing an efficient mode for courts to hear similar claims.

This blog entry will concentrate on the role of the lead plaintiff in class actions. Also known as the representative plaintiff or named party, the lead plaintiff’s lends his or her name to the caption of the case (i.e. Smith et. al. vs. Defendant Company). The lead plaintiff is a representative member of the class who stands in for the group and acts on behalf of the full class. In some cases, more than one class member can share the role.

Given the importance of choosing an appropriate lead plaintiff, court rules require that the court approve the selection. Often the person who gets the litigation moving will later be deemed the lead plaintiff. In order to qualify for the role, the court must find that the lead plaintiff’s claims be typical of the claims in the class and that the lead plaintiff be capable of adequately representing the interests of the group as a whole. Certain types of cases have more specific requirements, such as a preference in certain securities cases to have the person with the largest financial interest take the lead role. Many courts impose a time limit on applications for the lead plaintiff role.